CSPAN Booknotes

Slavery and the Declaration of Independence can in
no way be reconciled.
-Brent Staples,New
York Times Book Review

This idiotic notion lies at the core of the Jefferson dilemma for fuzzy
minded liberal twit historians; the idea that the failure of the Founding
Fathers to deal with the enormously divisive slavery issue in July 1776,
somehow delegitimizes the whole American Revolution. In fact, this
aspect of Jefferson's character is easily explained, though his alleged
relationship with Sally Hemmings is more problematic. The truly difficult
aspect of his character is his profoundly antidemocratic lack of respect
for the Constitution.

It really isn't hard to understand the Founders' willingness to tolerate
slavery. It is merely necessary to jettison the 20th Century (&
19th for that matter) detritus that clutters our minds when we look back
at them through the mists of time. Whenever we watch a movie set
in pre-Modern times, my wife will turn to me and say the same thing every
time, "Boy those people must have really smelled." But do we think
of Jefferson as crude because he took a bath once a month or whatever?
No, because this was the convention of the time. Similarly, it is
asinine to try to judge his opinion of Blacks by a modern standard.

Western man found African Blacks living in near Stone Age conditions.
This, combined with physical dissimilarities lead to the understandable,
though unfortunate, belief that Blacks were somehow lesser humans.
To look back from the end of the Twentieth Century and take 18th Century
men to task for this is both unfair and unproductive. In judging
Jefferson, it should suffice that the Declaration that he wrote, in particular
the phrase: "all men are created equal", made the end of slavery inevitable.

[A Thought Experiment: Suppose for a moment that we project current
demographics and politics forward in time a couple decades. Women
have become increasingly powerful politically and as a result many more
protections have been put in for the weakest members of society.
Abortion, Euthanasia and Animal Experimentation are all illegal.
The people of this time could look back on us and write books about the
impossibility of reconciling Bill Clinton's rhetoric with his support for
all three. Surely we can see that this would be unfair.]

On the other hand, the possibility of a Jefferson/Hemmings liaison is
a more troubling issue. If he truly felt, as his slave ownership
indicates he must have, that blacks were inferior and whites were entitled
to own them, then he would be little more than a sexual predator if he
initiated a physical relationship with her. She was already unable
to give true consent because of the master/slave relationship, but Jefferson
should have perceived her as even less able to consent if he believed her
to be a member of a lesser species. I am not willing to assume that
he did enter into such a relationship, it remains unproved, but if it ever
is proven, it will force a major reconsideration of his character, or lack
of such.

The criticism of Jefferson's attitude towards Blacks actually misses
the the most fundamental trouble spot in his character. It is his
overly idealistic attitude towards democracy and his lack of respect for
the law that really raises questions. Ellis does an excellent job
of demonstrating that individual freedom and antipathy towards all institutions
were the defining characteristics of Jefferson's politics. But in
order for men to enjoy freedom, they have to be able to depend on the fair
and consistent functioning of the laws and the system of justice.
Ellis reveals numerous examples, from the Louisiana Purchase to his opposition
to judicial review, of Jefferson's willingness to ignore the Constitution
and resort to the arbitrary exercise of power. Moreover, his support
for the majority, unfettered by the protection of minority views that Madison
insisted on, coupled with his approval of the French Revolution, forces
us to consider whether he even understood the importance of securing political
rights in a web of laws. Ultimately he comes across as a kind of
coercive utopian, willing to see the rights of the few trampled under foot
in order to achieve his personal vision of the ideal agrarian democracy.
It is a short step from this Jefferson to Robespierre and The Terror or
Pol Pot and The Killing Fields.

This excellent book raises all these issues, dealing with some better
than others. But it is always interesting and is extremely well written.